Haryana

Ambala

CC/162/2014

DHARAM PAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL ARYA

22 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No. : 162 of 2014

Date of Institution    : 01.07.2014

Date of Decision      :  22-06-2017

 

Dharampal son of Sh. Lakhmira Ram, R/o Village Raipur Viran, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Tata Motors, Bombay House 24, Homi Mody street, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400001 through its Managing Director.  
2. Pasco Motors NH-73, Ambala-Jagadhri Road, Opposite Gurudwara Dosarka, Distt. Ambala through its authorized signatory.

 

……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Sh. Sunil Kumar Arya, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Keshav Sharma, counsel for OP No. 1.

                   OP No. 2 already ex-parte.  

 

ORDER.

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a Tata Ace Zip BS III vide chassis No. MAT491005CJH30594, Engine No. GREVES600WS2H80353 from the OP No. 2 in the year of 2012 with one year warranty. It is submitted that in the month of March, 2013 the said vehicle of the complainant met with an accident and when the complainant contacted the OP No. 2 for the repair of the said vehicle then OP No. 2 told the complainant that at that time there was no mechanic available with their company who will repair the same and told the complainant that the complainant has to contact Balkar Chand the employee of the company and he will repair the same. On which, complainant contacted Balkar Chand but he told that specific spare part i.e. Assy Side Wall Complete LH_PC will have to be change and the same is available only with the company. Thereafter, the complainant again contacted the OP No. 2 for the installment of that specific spare part but the OP No. 2 told the complainant that this spare part is not available and the complainant has to book the said part in advance and accordingly he book the same vide receipt No. 186 dated 11-04-2013 and paid amount of Rs. 4,000/- to the OP No. 2. Then OP No. 2 assured the complainant that they will provide the above said part within 2 or 3 days and after some days the complainant again contacted the OP No. 2 but OP has deferred the matter on one pretext or the other. It is further submitted that the OP No. 2 did not supply the spare part since last more than 10 months to the complainant despite several requests of the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant approached the OP No. 2 to supply the spare part but the OP No. 2 flatly refused and man handled and abused in filthy language to the complainant and further more threatened to be done to death in case he again came to the OP No. 2 for the payment of spare parts. The complainant lastly sent legal notice dated 01-02-2014 through his counsel to the OP No. 2 and the same was received by the OP No. 2 then on 07-02-2014 the OP No. 2 gives the spare parts after payment of left balance and total amount of 5,490/- after having received a legal notice from the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant again sent a legal notice dated 21-05-2014 with regards to loss suffered by the complainant of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. for more than ten months, but the OP NO. 2 never gave any heed to the request of the complainant.  As such, there is a great deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complainant has prayed that the OPs may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss caused to the complainant, Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  

2.                 Upon notice, OP No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed their written statement raising preliminary objection qua maintainability of complaint, no deficiency in service on their part. It has been submitted that as per own admission of the complainant, the vehicle in question met with an accident and brought the vehicle at the workshop of OP No. 2 for accidental repairs. “This warranty shall not apply if the vehicle or any part there of is repaired or altered otherwise than in accordance with our standard repair procedure, or by any person other than our authorized dealer or their sub dealers or service centres in any way so as, in our judgment which shall be final and binding to effect its reliability or shall it apply if in our opinion, which shall be final and binding, the vehicle or the part has been subjected to misuse, negligence, improper or inadequate maintenance and servicing or accident or loading in excess of the carrying capacity as certified by us or the services prescribed in Operator’s service book are not carried out at our sales or service establishments, our authorized dealer or their sub-dealers or service centres.” It is further submitted that the main grievance of the complainant is against OP No. 2 and the answering OP, being a manufacturer of vehicle, has been unnecessary impleaded in the aforesaid matter.  As such, no case is made out against the answering opposite party, hence, OP No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

          OP No. 2 did not appear despite registered notice issued against him, hence, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05-03-2315.

3.                To prove their version, counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure CX alongwith documents as C1 to C6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No. 1 has made a statement that the reply given by him, same be read as such in the evidence of the OP No. 1 and closed the evidence. 

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased the vehicle in question in the year of 2012 with one year warranty. It is submitted that in the month of March, 2013 the said vehicle met with an accident and when the complainant contacted the OP No. 2 for the repair of the said vehicle then OP No. 2 told the complainant that he has to contact Balkar Chand the employee of the company and he will repair the same. On which, complainant contacted Balkar Chand but he told that specific spare part i.e. Assy Side Wall Complete LH_PC will have to be change and the same is available only with the company and has to book the said part in advance and accordingly he book the same vide receipt No. 186 dated 11-04-2013 and paid amount of Rs. 4,000/- to the OP No. 2 as per annexure C6. But the OP No. 2 did not supply the spare part since last more than 10 months to the complainant despite several requests of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice dated 01-02-2014 to the OP No. 2 as per annexure C3 and C4 and then on 07-02-2014 the OP No. 2 gives the spare parts after payment of left balance and total amount of 5,490/- as annexure C5. Thereafter, the complainant again sent a legal notice dated 21-05-2014 with regards to loss suffered by the complainant of Rs. 15,000/- p.m. for more than ten months, but the OP No. 2 never gave any heed to the request of the complainant.

 5.               To rebut these contentions, counsel for OP No. 1 has argued that the main grievance of the complainant is against OP No. 2 and the answering OP, being a manufacturer of vehicle, has been unnecessary impleaded in the aforesaid matter.  But the OP No. 2 has not appeared to rebut the contentions of the complainant. In this regard we have relied upon the judgments In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2008)CPJ 98 titled Pahnawa Boutique & Anr. Vs. Shaifi Verma whereby Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Complaint fully supported by affidavit-No basis to reject complainant’s version-O.P.failed to contest proceedings despite notice-Order of Forum allowing the exparte complaint upheld” and as per 1998(3)CCC 65(P & H) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sardari Lal Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors. has held that: Non-appearance of a party as a witness in the suit-Gives rise to a strong presumption against him”.

6.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record carefully, it is proved on the file that the present matter is not relates to under warranty repair. Further it is proved on the file that the complainant has booked the spare part in question on 11-04-2013 but the said spare part was delivered to the complainant by the OP No. 2 on 07-02-2014 i.e. after about 10 months and after receiving the balance amount and total cost of the spare part is Rs. 5,490/-. Further counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case law cited in I (2016) CPJ 357 (NC) titled as Amar Tractor, Chetan Automotives and Agro Equipment v. Ashok Prahladrao Patil & Anr, wherein it is held consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1)(f), 2 (1)(d), 21 (b)- Motor Vehicle – Tractor purchased by raising loan – defects – sent for repairing – non delivery after repairing – outstanding dues – deficiency in service – compensation claim – District Forum dismissed complaint- State Commission allowed appeal – Hence revision – Petitioner failed to provide any reasonable explanation as to why they retained tractor for such a long time – they made no effort to return tractor to comlainat who left it with petitioner on account of defects – state commission rightly held that complainant could not have left tractor just to avoid payment of meager amount – Petitioner wrongly deprived complainant from making use of tractor for cultivation of his land – no error in impunged order and case law 2014 (3) CPC 178 titled as Bhushan Tewari v. Tata Commercial Motors and anr, which is squarely covering the facts of the present case.

7.                In view of the above said discussion as well as in view of the aforesaid case laws, we are of the considered view that the complainant has been deprived from making use of his vehicle for such a long period and as such OPs are deficiency in service as well as committed unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant is entitled the compensation on account of financial loss, mental agony, however, there is no corroborative evidence that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 15,000/- per month for the period of ten months due non supplying of the spare part in question. In view of the circumstances and totality of the case as well as to meet the end of justice, we assess the loss to tune of Rs. 20,000/- along with the litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3,000/-. Accordingly, we partly allow the present complaint with costs and the OP No. 2 are directed to comply the following directions within a period of thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of financial loss, mental agony and harassment. Failing which, they will be liable to pay interest @ 12 % on the awarded amount from the date of order till its realization.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as costs on account of litigation. 

                   Copies of the order be sent to the parties, free of costs, as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced on: 22.06.2017                                  (D.N.ARORA)

                                                                              PRESIDENT

 

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

 

                                                                   (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                             MEMBER